

Car keys/fobs
Mastodon: @greg@clar.ke
Car keys/fobs
Canada has some of the least affordable cities in North America but it also has some of the most affordable cities. If you are able to move then Canada has some very affordable options. But I appreciate that the ability to move is a luxury that many folks don’t have because of circumstances like family commitments.
🌈
Our 3yo and my misses both had ticks early this season. Deer frequently visiting our property which is lovely but the ticks on them is not as lovely. After starting garlic spray treatments we no longer see them
I don’t have it here
I assume you cashed it in with the tooth fairy?
It’s legal through a US subsidiary if the funds come from US operations. The morality is questionable though
I’m ok with this, it means one less human had to read it
I’m not sure you know what learned means. You’ve missed literally dozens of other countries.
What is the most trouble this has gotten you into?
Do you have access to Kanopy through your local library? It’s an online streaming platform with decent content.
How do you navigate important milestone events like weddings, graduations, funerals, etc?
What’s scary is that limiting kids access to social media sites that promote algorithmic content is controversial. Of course kids shouldn’t be on YouTube. There are great streaming alternatives that are suitable for kids, ABC’s iView in Australia, BBC’s iPlayer in the UK, etc.
Oh I get it… but just in case someone else doesn’t get it, what’s suspicious about the arrangement?
But I want to become a zombie and eat brains
That sounds frustrating, you should buy a pair or Ray Ban sunglasses to reduce the glare from the ad screens. Never hide - Ray Ban.
I would go in just to accept their cookies
deleted by creator
Sure, I’ll bite. Here are some of the logical fallacies you’ve committed in this thread.
Definition: Rejecting a claim by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the claim itself.
Quote:
“If you read that article and say ‘yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre’, you are a fascist.”
Formal Logic:
(I say: Credible(BBC)) ⇒ (You say: I ∈ Fascist)
Therefore: ¬Credible(BBC)
This sidesteps the actual argument about the article’s credibility by attacking me personally. It doesn’t address whether the article is actually accurate or balanced.
Definition: Dismissing a claim based solely on its source rather than its content.
Quote:
“Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.”
Formal Logic:
(Source(C) = BBC ∧ Bad(Source)) ⇒ ¬C
You reject the article’s factual content entirely because it’s from the BBC, without evaluating the specific claims being made.
Definition: Defending a controversial position (bailey) by retreating to a safer, more defensible one (motte) when challenged.
Quote:
“So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from ‘gliders were used to attack small villages’ to ‘gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets’ to ‘a para-glider was referenced in this article’.”
Formal Logic:
Let P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”
You challenge P → I clarify P’ = “Paragliders attacked civilian targets like Kfar Aza”
Then you respond to P′′ = “Paragliders are mentioned in the article”
Then argue:
¬Mentions(P′′) ⇒ ¬P
It’s a little ironic you accuse me of doing a Motte-and-Bailey while actually performing one yourself - shifting from the broader factual claim to whether the article uses specific phrasing. But hey, we all do it sometimes!
Definition: Assuming that because someone made a flawed argument, their conclusion must be false.
Quote:
“Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had ‘so many logical fallacies’…”
Formal Logic:
(∃ Fallacy in Argument A) ⇒ ¬Valid(A)
Then wrongly inferred: ¬Valid(A) ⇒ ¬True(Conclusion A)
Even if my argument has flaws, that alone doesn’t disprove the underlying claim (e.g., that paragliders attacked civilians).
Definition: Assuming the conclusion within the premise - circular reasoning.
Quote (from your rebuttal):
“Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true.” “That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong…”
Formal Logic:
(You assume: ¬P)
Then argue: ¬P
\[where P = “Paragliders attacked civilians”]
You point out this fallacy in me - but then do the same thing by assuming the opposite is true without disproving it.
Definition: Discrediting someone in advance so that their argument won’t be taken seriously.
Quote:
“Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?” “If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.”
Formal Logic:
Uses(BBC) ⇒ ∈Fascist ⇒ ¬Trustworthy(All Claims from Person)
This frames me as inherently untrustworthy because of the sources I read, regardless of the content of my arguments.
edit: fixing formatting
It’s amazing how relatable ancient art can be